Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Placebo orthodoxy and the double standard of care in multinational clinical research.Maya J. Goldenberg - 2015 - Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics 36 (1):7-23.
    It has been almost 20 years since the field of bioethics was galvanized by a controversial series of multinational AZT trials employing placebo controls on pregnant HIV-positive women in the developing world even though a standard of care existed in the sponsor countries. The trove of ethical investigations that followed was thoughtful and challenging, yet an important and problematic methodological assumption was left unexplored. In this article, I revisit the famous “double standard of care” case study in order to offer (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   3 citations  
  • When argument fails.Charles Weijer - 2002 - American Journal of Bioethics 2 (2):10 – 11.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   8 citations  
  • The Ethics and Science of Placebo-Controlled Trials: Assay Sensitivity and the Duhem–Quine Thesis.James Anderson - 2006 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 31 (1):65 – 81.
    The principle of clinical equipoise requires that, aside from certain exceptional cases, second generation treatments ought to be tested against standard therapy. In violation of this principle, placebo-controlled trials (PCTs) continue to be used extensively in the development and licensure of second-generation treatments. This practice is typically justified by appeal to methodological arguments that purport to demonstrate that active-controlled trials (ACTs) are methodologically flawed. Foremost among these arguments is the so called assay sensitivity argument. In this paper, I take a (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   19 citations  
  • (1 other version)The Ethical Analysis of Risk.Charles Weijer - 2000 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 28 (4):344-361.
    The institutional review board is the social-oversight mechanism charged with protecting research subjects. Performing this task competently requires that the IRB scrutinize informed-consent procedures, the balance of risks and potential benefits, and subject-selection procedures in research protocols. Unfortunately, it may be said that IRBs are spending too much time editing informed-consent forms and too little time analyzing the risks and potential benefits posed by research. This time mismanagement is clearly reflected in the research ethics literature. A review of articles published (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   37 citations